User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

April, 2016 – July, 2016

Hatnote at "Fishkeeping"

Hi, you reverted my removal of a hatnote at Fishkeeping. I removed the hatnote because it doesn't lead to another article. The message that a certain page redirects to an article isn't helpful unless the reader might be looking for a different article. Thus hatnote messages like {{redirect}}'s "X" redirects here. For Y, see [[Z]] help the reader find page Z.

In this case, there's no "target" page ("Z"), so the hatnote doesn't serve a useful purpose, especially as users are already given a message by the software at the top of the page when they're redirected. Since the hatnote is useless, it should therefore be removed. Adding a link to the redirect itself just makes things confusing, since the redirect might look like it will lead to a separate Aquarist page while actually just looping back to Fishkeeping.

Would you mind removing (or letting me remove) that hatnote again, based on this rationale? Thanks, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. No big deal to me, so no problem. (I had thought that your concern was that there was no link to Aquarist, so I had added the square brackets to make the link blue.) I had forgotten that readers do indeed get that small message at the top of the page that they have been redirected, so you are right that it's not particularly informative. On the other hand, insofar as I can tell, Template:Redirect3 is specifically intended to be used the way it was used there. I guess if this is something you feel strongly about you might want to bring it up at TfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

{{redirect3}} should be used with its second parameter to produce redirect messages that the other redirect messages can't. For example, there are a ton of species articles that use it to mention redirects associated with junior synonyms of other species. Using it with just one parameter ought to produce an error message, but, because it doesn't, it's used without it in a bunch of places. I've been doing some cleanup work on replacing instances where {{redirect3}} is used that it ought not to be. Many of its transclusions ought to be replaced with other templates, particularly {{redirect}} and {{redirect-distinguish}}, or deleted entirely (when they don't offer a target page). Perhaps I ought to add a tracking category for pages where the second parameter is unused… {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a very helpful explanation. Thanks! The documentation of the template does not make that need for both parameters all that clear. For instance, right at the top of the template page, it displays the "wrong" way. That misled me, and it might mislead other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point, thanks! I've tweaked that part to fix that. I should probably add a note in the documentation, too… {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 00:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much re drop the stick

Tryptofish,

Thanks very much for your comment regarding drop the stick.

User appears to have willfully ignored my comment where I pointed out I've been provided feedback in numerous different threads at that page regarding multiple different topics. DIFF.

I'm particularly appreciative of the DefendEachOther, Tryptofish, as the continued haranguing by the user in question is getting most tiresome.

The replies ad infinitum after each and every single comment border on inane disruption, at the very least.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you are very welcome, and thank you for thanking me. I wish people would not take things so personally. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see my DIFF. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me. I haven't followed the history of whatever prior interactions you have had with the other editor. But I think it really boils down to this: if you are not doing it as "retaliation", then saying so should be enough per WP:AGF. To the degree that there is something approximately like a burden of proof on Wikipedia, it's up to the user making the accusation. Obviously, ANI is a WP:CESSPIT, so don't let things other people say get to you (of course that's easier said than done). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've said as much. Three times. May I leave it up to others now? — Cirt (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please understand, I'm not an admin, and I don't give permission for anything like this. But yes. After all, that is also a way of dropping the stick. (In my experience, it's a mistake to reply to everything at ANI. And you don't have to defend yourself unless someone is actually asking for something to be done to you. Here, it just sounds like they are repeatedly saying that they don't think your position should count. Obviously, that didn't persuade me.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. I guess at this point in time I'll just wait and hopefully others will reply in my stead, instead? — Cirt (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Or it will just fizzle out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, Tryptofish, sounds good, I'll try to defer to your wise judgement on the matter. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You're most welcome ! — Cirt (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: He did it again, at DIFF. Does my reply there look okay? — Cirt (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, it's fine. I see the SPI was closed with no action, but I also think that the other user is just digging himself in deeper and deeper. So, let him! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Recommendation for html editor

Tryptofish, Hi!

Thanks for your welcoming comments and offer of help. I have been editing the source code for discussion in the Talk forum, but this can be awkward. I use Mac OSX El Capitan. Have you any ideas to make leaving comments easier, maybe a recommendation for an htlm editor? kind regards RAMRashan (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty much ignorant on the subject of coding, so I really don't know the answer to that (and I also am running Windows Vista). If all you want to do is to leave comments on talk pages, all you have to do is use the Edit tab and use the Wikimedia software that runs automatically, and there is no need to modify the underlying source code or to do anything at the level of HTML. Also, if you go to your Preferences tab and then go to Editing, you have a choice of user interface. There are numerous options there that may interest you, and the last one in the middle section is "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". You can try turning that on or off. I always leave it disabled, because the visual editor isn't what I am used to, but some editors might prefer to enable the beta version. But if you want to get involved with the more technical aspects, the ideal place to post is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). There are editors who respond to questions there, who are experts on these sorts of things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. It's weird because although the "Edit" Tab appears on my browser for normal pages, only the "Edit Source" Tab is available for Talk pages. Looks like a bug of some sort, I'll check more. Thanks! RAMRashan (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Visual Editor is intentionally disabled for talk pages. EEng 13:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks EEng. So, RAMRashan, if you disable the visual editor per what I said above, that should solve it for you. In my opinion, VE is lousy anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Something else Tfish and I agree on. See User:EEng#visual_editor. EEng 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, this is very helpful RAMRashan (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Some dim sum for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 09:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's very nice of you! Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't want them to spoil - thanks for sharing, Tryp!! The ones I tried were Dee-lish!! Northamerica1000 will probably want his dim sum pan back when you get through. Atsme📞📧 05:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone is going to have to Photoshop 5 more images! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding your ANI comment about further investigation, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renameduser024. If you have any evidence to add there, it would be appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm very glad that this is being followed through on. Frankly, I don't really understand the underlying issues, so I don't think that I have anything to add. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Query

[2]

Why do you think this is "just fine"? Honestly curious.

jps (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Jps - I am advising you that I also stalk this Talk page. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Because of the context and because of the tone of your own comments. Here is specifically why: You said "My god, but that's an awful source... it is by far and away the worst paper I've read in a long time." Now, as I also said (and DrChrissy should take note), the journal does appear to me to have been published out of Cuba and may perhaps be a low-quality source. But if you compare and contrast "the journal does appear to me to have been published out of Cuba and may perhaps be a low-quality source" with what I just quoted from you, there is a difference in tone (to put it mildly), and I cannot really blame DrChrissy for feeling insulted. I do, however, recognize that two wrongs do not make a right, so I also do not consider the diff you cite to be literally "just fine". I said that about the dispute overall. My advice to everyone (and not for the first time) is to dial down the perception that everything is personal and that everything is a battle. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not revert talk pages, whether you find things inappropriate is irrelevant.

Hello. Just letting you know I have reverted my comment on Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Your revert reason was 'Inappropriate use of a Wikipedia talk page.' A talk page is not like an article page you're not new here so you know this. If I want to talk about the price of fish in Tasmania on an article about quantum dynamics that's my prerogative.

However the topic raised was about an organisation founded around the suicide of a youth doing something that would lead to serious real world repercussions including suicides, by encouraging the publication of home addresses and personal information of people who were reported to be 'cyber bullies' arbitrarily to their body of self appointed judges. As this foundation is a charity this is an extremely notable thing. But regardless, by no means should you take it upon yourself to decide what is and isn't appropriate for another editor to raise on a talk page. Heck, this project of theirs is literally the highest media exposure the organisation has ever gotten. It's the sole reason most people even know it exists.

But again, you're not new to Wikipedia, you know all this and I would think your actions were intentional on those grounds alone. I can only submit that if you cannot refrain from manipulating other people's interactions on Wikipedia through censorship in such an underhanded manner perhaps you should excuse yourself and find another project more aligned towards your moral compass. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 03:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your concerns with me here at my talk page. You are correct that I have had experience editing and that I reverted your comment intentionally. I believe that you are incorrect about pretty much everything else you have said. You made this edit: [3]. As anyone can see from the diff, you referred to the family and supporters of a suicide victim as "morons". I reverted you: [4]. You did not self-revert, nor did you say anything along the lines of it being a noble charity. My revert was appropriate per WP:TPG, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:RGW, and WP:ATTACK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe your moral compass was thrown off by your magnetic personality? EEng 04:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, what do I know? I have days when I'm unsure which way is up! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, maybe magnets should stay away from iron rods, of any gauge. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It took a moment, then it hit me in the head. -Roxy the dog™ woof 23:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

... and guess whose talk page I visited after I wrote that? -Roxy the dog™ woof 23:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe Talk:Phineas Gage, or maybe User talk:EEng? Actually, we could probably redirect one of those to the other. (See that, you should have ducked.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

TPS

	The Ultimate TPS Award
	Is this not the cutest talk page stalker ever?!! We see lots of kittens, so I decided it was time for some puppies. I'm also working on some mini-pig pictures to go with my fun banners. Atsme📞📧 19:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes indeed, I'm a sucker for cute puppies! (And by the way, nope to Bitcoin.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried clicking on that link, and my antivirus software blocked it! I gather that there is a joke about Bitcoin there, but I cannot see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, poopers! Ok, I'll describe it. A masked robber points his gun at a guy and demands all his cash. The guy says "Sorry, I only use bitcoin. The robber hands the guy a wad of cash and says, "Here, you need this more than me." *lol* ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That's obviously made up. Any self-respecting gentleman robber would employ proper grammar i.e. "You need this more than I." EEng 09:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, and yes, that's a good one! (It appears my software is quite the prude.) Now I wish I had some bitcoin. EEng said: "You need this more than I." That being the case, EEng, yes I'll gladly take it from you. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

	The Ultimate TPS Award
	Is this not the most approriate talk page stalker ever?!! We see lots of puppies and mini-pigs, so I decided it was time for some chameleons. Forget jaguars, these bad boys are the real DBs!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

Uh-oh. Do chameleons eat fish? (Sorry, the puppy is still waaay cuter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, they can but try. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And let that be a lesson to them! That's a great video! I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• LOL* The video - too funny, Martinevans123. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Uhm, Tryp - [5] there's still time to reconsider. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I get Swiss cheese instead? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

🐭🧀 ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Links

Re to your comment in connection to this. OK, but how does it work on practice? Consider user X who inserts a link (that could be YouTube or whatever), re-includes the link and insists that the entry he links to is not a copyright violation? He tells that he checked the link to make sure of that. Now, this is actually your responsibility to prove that the link was in fact to an entry-copyright violation and provide the evidence to user X. If he continue doing the same, he can be reported on appropriate noticeboard. However, simply continue removing the links(s) over his objections on the grounds like "I know that YouTube in general contains a lot of violations" would be disruptive and actually against the guidelines. I am not telling that links you removed in this case should be re-included because I did not check them yet.My very best wishes (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

In this specific case, I have seen some very trustworthy editors say that these particular links do in fact appear to contain copyright violations. So any speculation as to what might instead happen if I had not known that is beside the point. As for where the WP:BURDEN lies, it is always with the editors who have added or re-added the links. In my personal opinion, although it is very kindly of you to help the editor we are talking about, you are over-reaching in your defense of him and of the content that he has added. You are ending up just making more unnecessary work for the rest of us. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If you mean this notice, this is about a copyright problem in one specific page. One should simply fix the corresponding WP page. Same with a few other pages I checked. As about WP:BURDEN, this is all about providing citations. Well, that is what this user actually does by linking to TCDB which qualifies as an RS to my knowledge. So, you are actually removing inline citations of TCDB provided by this user on the ground that RS he is using has a few copyright violations. Well, I have seen a lot of copyright violations in academic journals. This is happening when an author is reusing his own nearly identical texts in a number of different publications (as occasionally do TCDB authors). This is bad, but this does not invalidate any of these academic journals as sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not referring to that. I was referring to posts that said exactly what I described. This has nothing to do with whether or not sources are reliable (as important as that is, nonetheless). It's about Wikipedia not serving as a facilitator of plagiarism and copyright violation by linking to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As about me "over-reaching", no. This is one of my areas of expertise, and I know that you are wrong about TCDB. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any connection with the Saier lab that would relate to WP:COI? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly? No. I never even met him in my life, I do not know anyone from his lab, I never collaborated with anyone from his lab, etc. But let's assume for a second that I did. Would it make any difference? Would it mean that you started judging me or anyone else not on the grounds of their arguments on talk pages and contributions to the project, but based on their personal background and friends? My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Then the key matter is what the preponderance of sources are telling us. You don't need to convince me here. You need to convince other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not need anything. I started a thread for discussion because of actions by you and another contributor and already expressed my opinion in that discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Then I think we are done here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case amendment request

Your amendment request has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (May 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 12:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks (and it's about time!). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Fish webcam

Trypto, I could do with some of your experienced input, please. Over at the Fish article, an editor has just posted a link to a video-stream of live fish in a tank. My first question is, should this be included? I think it is actually quite innovative and could lead to other video-streams of other animals being included in WP. We have had an article Fishcam since 2005, so I guess it has already been deemed noteworthy. The second is my major concern. The web-stream link was apparently added by the owner of the web-cam. This could be considered as self-promotion, potentially COI, but I am loathe to make a fuss about this because some of these people can be "heavy-handed". The link does not appear to lead to advertising of any sort. Other streaming sites are available, e.g. Live Web Cams at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, but these are inherently advertising. Thoughts would be much appreciated. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. I looked at it, and made a few edits, but I don't see any problems that would require its removal. I agree with you that this has the potential to be innovative with respect to content. And I also do not see any real COI issues. I could take a photo of fish in one of my tanks, and use it to illustrate a page, and there would not be anything promotional about it. Here, there is the added issue of a link to an external site, admittedly, but I just don't see it as a problem. At some point, we may get to where there are multiple links to multiple webcam sites, and there will come a need to prioritize which ones to include and which to delete, but we aren't there yet.

By coincidence, the reason I haven't edited for two days (how atypical of me!) is that I have been busy setting up a new saltwater reef tank of my own! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

New source

Just an FYI in case you haven't heard about it , there's a very large document just put out by the Nation Academies of Science on GMOs.[6] That press release should do for now, but I'm seeing if I can pull some strings to get the full document (either the pre-publication now or the final version when that comes out). Knowing some of the people on this committee, there's going to be a lot of thorough of information in the report that would be good for general article writing. I'm going to look into integrating some of the press release content into articles and the RfC proposals tomorrow sometime hopefully, but I figured I'd give you a heads up since this one just came out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I've heard and seen news coverage about it, and I was planning to look into citing it myself. From what I have heard, it is certainly a significant RS. I've been away from editing for two days (setting up a new fishtank), and I see that I have come back to quite the drama in this never-ending Wiki-dispute. But I'm pleased to see the admins keeping on top of it. I, too, will be looking carefully at the RfC stuff in the next day or so. Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I know how much time tanks can take. I only have a smaller one nowadays, but I've been fighting off tons of algae all of a sudden after three years of it being crystal clear. I'm just about done planting research plots, so I'll probably be making more of a return in editing in the near future too. Hopefully we can get prep wrapped up soon to get the RfC rolling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've added the new source to three of the proposals. (Good luck on that algae!) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, Kingofaces43: I just checked and I have the prepublication copy through my university. I can send it to you if you haven't gotten access yet. Sunrise (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It is also online. If you follow the URL where I added it to the proposals on the draft RfC page, there are links to the full prepublication version. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I managed to find it too. I thought it looked like it was paywalled at first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm just heading out the door for the holiday and just found this study. It's technically primary, but it covers more of the psychology end of things while also reiterating that there is a scientific consensus in its introduction. I probably won't have time to dig through it until next week for cited references that could be useful at the RfC. This could be an area to keep an eye on though as it would be good for fleshing out content on the fringe aspects of GMO consensus denial after the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it certainly does make for interesting reading! Myself, I cannot wait to be able to put the entire editing topic behind me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You know what? On second thought, I'm going to add this source to some of the proposals now. It's certainly directly related to public polling. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Meaning it in entirely a good way, I'll be glad to see the day you go. I'm more or less stuck with the topic being an agricultural science editor, but I'll at least be able to put most of my time into my growing to-do list on other topics rather than put all this energy into GMOs.

As for the source, I was iffy too because psych gets into different territory than we normally deal with where public polling can be a gray zone of secondary sources. I think it's worth considering though the way you included it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well-said, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My new favorite page title

Sea snot. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Did you know...that sea snot is produced by phytoplankton when they are stressed?

(No, I did (s)not, and I think I was better off not knowing.)

A personal favorite of mine is Slide Mountain Ocean. Eman235/talk 18:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! The jokes just write themselves, don't they? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it puts "the oceans white with foam" in a whole new light, and perhaps not a better one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Uhh, "Bless You, America"‽ Eman235/talk 03:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• For increased yuck factor:

Did you know ... that warmer, slower moving waters increase the production of sea snot and allow it to accumulate in massive blobs?

Did you know ... that warm, slow-moving waters promote massive blobs of sea snot?

EEng 21:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Snot and hookers, what a combination! Sea snot, sea snot run, run snot run. As it happens, I'm in the process of setting up a new saltwater reef aquarium, and I'm at the stage in the early set-up process where one has to establish the population of microorganisms (to be able to neutralize fish waste etc.), before introducing any higher organisms. And I'm having an issue with a bacterial bloom that needs to subside before I can do anything more, and truly, there is stuff in there that looks like snot! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

^{Atsme📞📧} 14:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all my talk page participants! It occurs to me, I have a real knack for selecting hobbies. I'm growing snot in an aquarium tank, and I spend all this time on Wikipedia, dealing with snotty POV-pushers (present company excluded, obviously). Sniff, sniff. I really ought to clean up my act. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey EEng, the water in my tank is warm, but very fast-moving, real good submersible pumps. So I have little blobs, not massive ones. I'm glad that the humor keeps coming here, because in my other current editing (did I just refer to currents?), it's anything but humorous, so I need all the levity I can find. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you suffering from a real knack for selecting hobbies? Future PHARMS Inc. has exactly what you need. [7] ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But if your editing session lasts more than four hours...

This has appeared elsewhere, but I'll re-post it here: Jonah was swallowed by a whale.^{[Cetacean needed]} --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• lol* A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though they were a very large mammal their throat was very small. The little girl stated Jonah was swallowed by a whale. The teacher reiterated a whale could not swallow a human; it was impossible. The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah." The teacher asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?" The little girl replied, "Then you ask him." ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ouch – reminds me of my teaching days! But come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that most of the larger whales feed on tiny plankton. Just a whole lot of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi Trypto. I've seen your comments about likely pursuing GMO-2. Are you still waiting to see if we can get the RfC started/wrapped up before pursuing that? I wasn't entirely clear from your language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Good question. It depends. I'm certainly not going to do it in, like, the next 24 hours. The Wordsmith has posted a request for another admin, and for closers, at WP:AN, and I am most certainly going to give that every opportunity to work out. If we can settle this with the RfC, that's much better than starting GMO-2. But here is the trigger: if The Wordsmith cannot get the RfC off the ground, then the unavoidable conclusion is that the community, in fact, cannot resolve the problem. And with that, ArbCom here we come. And I am very, very concerned about the doxing threats leveled at Laser brain. We are very close to a situation where the DS issued by ArbCom cannot be enforced, because administrators are unable to enforce it safely, and that also could trigger a case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the threats towards Laserbrain are approaching levels requiring ArbCom intervention. Maybe the admins seeing The Wordsmith's post will take care of the on-Wiki stuff. We'll wait and see I guess. I just wanted to make sure you aren't going into the next case too quickly, but your thinking pretty much sounds in line with mine on when/if that should be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Good, we agree. Well, so much for someone saying yesterday that the whole topic area has been quiet. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that comment was mistaking everyone focusing on the RfC for quiet in the articles themselves. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Good news! The RfC is back on! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hot dog! I'm glad I still had some faith in this still steaming along. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That hot dog better be GMO-free! Yes, another bullet dodged, another instance of the Wikipedia system working better than logic would suggest it has any right to do. But now, the full 30 days. Please let me suggest that you get your RfC comment prepared (mine is underway in my sandbox), so that you can post it when things go live. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been working on that for awhile now too. I have it largely finalized and ready to go when things go live. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

By now you've probably seen some of my recent posts saying I'll be out of touch for a bit. Given past problems that have come up in conflict resolution in the past when an editor suddenly became unavailable, I just wanted to assure you I'm still going to be checking in on the RfC in spurts this week. I've had rather inopportune emergency field work come up for this week, so I'm on the road and only have limited mobile access. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. Real life is more important than what happens here. And your RfC statement was very good, in one fish's opinion. It's sure been a clusterfuck of a weekend, but I believe that we are past the point where the process can be derailed, and I'm cautiously optimistic that the community will be able to come to a thoughtful consensus. Good luck with that field work! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

GMO AfC

If you still need a third uninvolved closer, I'm available. Deor (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I pointed that out, but I'm not in charge. Could you please repost this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admins requested for moderated RfC? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: in case this is quicker. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Deor: Have you participated in this content area, and are you okay with making a close that will be controversial no matter which way it goes? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: I don't believe that I've ever edited any GMO-related articles at all, and I'm fairly impervious to abuse. Deor (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Great. At a quick glance you seem qualified, so I'll add your name at WP:GMORFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! That's good news. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

ARCA

Your clarification request has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (June 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

GMO question

Hi, Tryptofish; I see you've had a fair amount of involvement with the GMO articles, and I wonder if you have a moment to answer a question. I have an relative who is a scientist and after some discussion of GMOs I sent them the link to the current RfC, since I thought they would be interested to see the process. They felt that proposal 1 was the best, but made a suggestion to add "Such testing relates to the characteristics of the cultivar rather than to the method of production" after the statement that there is a consensus that GM foods need to be tested. I really don't want to ask this on a GMO article talk page, since the subject is so fraught, but I thought you might happen to know if this has been discussed and what the consensus was if so. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Mike, and thank you for this thoughtful question. I understand what your scientist relative is getting at, and it's a scientific fine point more than it is something that typical Wikipedia readers would find informative. It basically comes down to the fact that the science demonstrates that making changes in DNA is not, per se, a problem, but that it is possible that any specific new plant might have some property introduced by those changes, that ought to be tested for in the interests of safety. In other words, it's an explanation of why scientists believe there should be case-by-case testing of new GMOs as they are introduced.

I don't recollect a discussion of that exact point, although maybe I just don't remember it. Some of our pages already do have an explanation of that concept lower on the page, albeit not in the specific language being discussed in the RfC. But there has been a lot of discussion about how much information is enough, and how much would be too much, especially for a statement that will often be in the lead section of pages. Given that Proposal 1 and quite a few other proposals already do say that scientists endorse case-by-case testing, the question then arises of whether we also need to go into further detail about "why" at this place on the page. My personal opinion is that it's too much information, and my reading of editor sentiment is that the proposals are already heavily loaded with information, and would be made worse by any further lengthening. As a scientist myself in real life, I get what your relative is saying, but I just don't see adding it for the sake of a general readership. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate the thorough response. Good luck with the GMO articles; I admire anyone who is prepared to dedicate time to keeping those pages rational. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thank you for the kind words. As for good luck – and how! I'm looking forward to seeing this through to a stable outcome, and then walking away from the topic in order to do some pleasurable editing instead. (By the way, perhaps you and/or your relative might find this source interesting, in a gallows-humor sort of way: [8].) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Hi, since we interacted on the article Creation Museum, I'm reaching out to you for an opinion. I've seen you editing with balance and a neutral POV, and have a good grasp of Wikipedia policies.

it has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises the questions of sourcing; neutrality; and level of detail present in the article. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.

I would welcome input or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would appreciate any feedback you could share. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to say that about me, thank you! At the moment, I'm caught between being kind of busy in real life and also having a very full plate with other editing that I am doing here, plus that bio page is pretty far outside of my editing expertise. So I'm afraid that I will have to turn you down on that. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for letting me know. Good luck with your projects! K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Finally, a dispute-free zone!

I have finally found a Wikipedia page that is completely free of disputes between editors: link. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Well played, and a Happy Treason Day to you! kelapstick(bainuu) 22:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

John L. Furth

I recently created the Furth BLP after seeing (as a talk-page participant) two failed attempts to get approval for a draft submitted by one of his family members. I thought maybe Furth's contribution to Yale Med, the field of study, and the resulting Furth professorship might inspire you to add more to the article. His story is here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, and sorry to see how the AfD is going. If he were actually a neuroscientist, the page would be in my wheelhouse, but since he is instead a philanthropist, I don't have much insight into the subject matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

His endowment created a professorship for a very deserving Hilary Blumberg which inspired me to create her article as well. Perhaps it is more in line with your wheelhouse? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Great to see another bio of a woman scientist! At the moment, I'm way too busy to add to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Distorting text

Stop do this. You distorted text based on based on sources. Cathry (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cathry, and welcome to my talk page. I know from looking at your talk page that you have been notified about the Discretionary Sanctions that exist on pages about GMOs. In your edit summary, you called the edits made by me and by another editor "vandalism", and here you call it distortion. These characterizations are not correct, and not helpful in editing Wikipedia. We can discuss the content on the merits, and that is much better than reverting edits or speaking to other editors in an angry tone. And, in light of the Discretionary Sanctions, you can get into a difficult situation pretty quickly if you continue to revert or to mischaracterize what other editors do. The study is what Wikipedia calls a primary source. In this context, the WP:UNDUE policy becomes relevant. It simply is not necessary to report the detailed percentages in the article. That does not mean that the numbers are incorrect, but rather, that it is too much information. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you understand perfectly that this information is not too much. 30% illness prevention is much smaller than 70%. Cathry (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The data are not measurements of "illness prevention". They are biochemical measurements in mice. And absolute numbers are not definitive without statistical significance. Importantly, the Domingo review that you cited concluded that the two types of soybeans are equally safe, not that one is safer or healthier than the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The data are measurement of protective effect. Domingo review says they are similar, not equal. Maybe lesser protective effect is called safe in modern science, but that is no reason to hide the numbers from the conclusion. Also, Domingo is against "substantial equivalence" in his article. Cathry (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Normally these discussions occur on article talk pages, so I've started the discussion here. I do have to agree with Tryptofish that your behavior is likely to land you in hot water if you keep it up, especially now that you've edit warred in content on a few occasions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that's the best approach, and thanks for getting the discussion started. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Have a cold one on me.

Thanks for the good ideas you're bringing to Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Prevention of CoI editing and better private reporting of suspicions are certainly good options when the alternative sounds like an outing free-for-all on the drama boards and talk pages. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'm glad that my comments are appreciated. Given the way some editors have been treating the disputes, I may need a six-pack! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC/Genetically modified organisms

It may be a little late now, but I mentioned in my comment that the number of citations for proposal one seemed a little excessive for use in each of the affected articles. I understand wanting to have overwhelming support for the statement, but it just doesn't look great visually. Anyway, you may already be aware of this technique, but I noticed something on Earthquake prediction page today: using a devoted "Sources" section, they managed to combine five citations into a single note (see note 136 here). Perhaps it wouldn't work in the affected GM articles, but it would certainly make things a lot cleaner looking if proposal one ends up getting incorporated. --tronvillain (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Personally, the multiple superscript cites don't bother me, but of course it's subjective. I am eager to see the entire thing closed and done with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, in Wikipedia:Citation overkill, they mention that you can accomplish the same thing just by putting a bullet in front of each reference, which would give:

Proposal 1

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

Citations

Thanks for doing the work on that, but a problem I can see is that many of the sources will also be cited at multiple other places on the page, but not in the same groupings. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point. --tronvillain (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe we actually did this at one point with cites that were only used in the consensus statement. I imagine there wouldn't be any problem doing this again for all the supporting sources that don't explicitly say consensus. We'll just have to see what the closers say and how well the sources would fit in a single footnote. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

For me, there is a second July 4 on July 7 this year! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, congratuations on the RfC closing in favour of proposal one. --tronvillain (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a group effort, of course. But I am very pleased by the outcome (obviously!), and I am even more pleased that I am now going to shift my editing away from GMOs, and towards some topics that I expect to enjoy much more. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed a good day. You do deserve thanks for all the heavy lifting you did on getting the RfC set up though. Now make good on your goal and go away to a different topic (or just rarely pop in sometime so I'm not all by my lonesome). In all seriousness though, I'm pretty optimistic that most remaining issues should die down or at least be easily handled by DS. I may be sticking around and likely have to deal with various behavior issues, but they should be severely reduced compared to before the ArbCom case started up. Maybe I should have studied fish instead of insects. Fish seem to be involved in less controversy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If only that were true. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ye gods.... did you really type that?...fish seem to be involved in less controversy. Yup... seems you did! Is this is what is meant by "distortions in space-time"? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm a fish, and I'm distorted all the time in all spaces! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everybody!! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is a few hours late now, but...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your efforts in putting together the GM RfC, as well as throughout the duration. I hope to see you around in the future and wish you the best with your attempt to move to more enjoyable topics. :-) Sunrise (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I want to say thank you too. Your perseverance and patience in this whole affair does you credit. I like to consider myself primarily a content editor in this area (although I do not have anywhere near the time I used to to devote to these articles) and I honestly believe just having some closure on this issue will make editing there much easier for everyone. While I am sure we will cross paths again, I do hope you poke your nose in occasionally at these articles. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both so very much! I agree that there is now some closure of a sort, and that it will force things to settle down into more constructive editing about GMOs. I'll still be very much around, and for the short term, I'm not going cold GM-turkey, so you'll still see me. As time goes on, well maybe cold fish! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

And I just spent a couple of hours dealing with some of the GMO aftermath. It seems to never end. (/kvetch) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog

You keep your finger on the pulse, do you have any idea what is happening? Any developments appear to have dropped off my radar (watchlist) totally. just asking. thx. -Roxy the dog™ woof 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the limited amount of information that I have, and it is limited. The way these things work (from my own experience), Jytdog is likely emailing back and forth with ArbCom, and ArbCom is deciding whether, in their opinion, he accepts their conception of outing and agrees not to do it again, as a condition of an unblock. Doc James has said on his own talk page that he knows that Jytdog has told ArbCom that he will not do it again. I assume that's based on email between Doc James and Jytdog, but I cannot independently confirm it. A day or two ago, GorillaWarfare put a message on Jytdog's talk page, saying that emails ArbCom has been sending him have been bouncing back, and asking him to email them. From that, I can infer that the process has been slowed down because of email problems, problems that presumably can be resolved. Beyond that, it's just a cumbersome process, because there are Arbs in different time zones and they are busy with multiple things, so it takes some time for them to make decisions. Now having said all that, it seems to me to have taken too long, and I am somewhat worried. Perhaps Jytdog is being stubborn about not agreeing to everything ArbCom wants, and perhaps ArbCom is making strict and inflexible demands, and perhaps both of those simultaneously, or perhaps I'm just speculating and that isn't true. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah. More or less what I know. I saw GorillaWarfare's message, which confirmed that JD's email was bouncing, as it did for me, and DocJames Barnstar. I'm worried too, but JD has in the past risen above all the nonsense, I hope he will again, soon. Thank you for taking the time for such a comprehensive response. -Roxy the dog™ woof 23:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome. We both hope this will be worked out soon. (You know, it just crossed my mind that there might be more about this at The Website that Dare Not Speak its Name. I haven't looked there in several days.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I looked myself up on that site once upon a time. I'll take a look, but I'm going to bed now. -Roxy the dog™ woof 00:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How far out of the picture am I? Via that site, I've discovered the DocJames Signpost article! I have found Signpost to be tedious and boring in the past, and rarely if ever look. hmmm.-Roxy the dog™ woof 11:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Outing

Wondering if you have thoughts on what we should change the wording of the "case by case" sentence too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly the key question! I'm not sure. If you look at the most recent talk page archive there, you can see a draft that I had been working on, and that can give some indication of my thinking, but I think that the present RfC has made it obsolete. What I think I want to do is to see how the present discussions work out, and then develop another RfC for the community. In it, I'm going to try to list a bunch of the most borderline cases. And I'll ask respondents to classify each one as outing or as permitted, according to what they themselves believe instead of what they think current policy might be. After we get whatever consensus we can get from that, I'd like to try to create language that says: this, this, and this are OK, but that, that, and that are not OK. Or maybe instead define a test that differentiates between them. With that, we may be able to do away with the case-by-case language.

As you can also see from the present discussion, I'm very interested in developing something like a new OTRS queue or mailing list, to which COI investigators could email their evidence without having to post it, and get back something like "confirmed" or "not confirmed" at COIN. There seems to be interest in that, and it would make a lot of the COI investigation issues a whole lot easier. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That was what I was trying to do with the last RfC. Would be happy to see another try after the current one closes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem with the current RfC is that editors had difficulty knowing whether they were commenting on whether or not they approve of linking to Elance, whether or not they approve of "case-by-case", or whether or not they approved of the then-edit-warring over "case-by-case". But I think that something very good has come out of it: a solid demonstration that the community is divided over linking in COI cases. No one can accurately claim that there is a settled consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is the case, should we not be following some form of precautionary principle? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends on whether one is being cautious about protection of editor privacy, or about protection of the encyclopedia from COI disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

DOH! I didn't think that through did I! DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel like I could make a humorous reply, but I'm coming up blank! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Response

I responded to you on the talk page. I'm just pinging you because I want some clarification.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I responded. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Your editing statistics

Hi. I noticed you recently edited your editing statistics link and thought I would let you know about this tool in case you don't already[9]. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For my user page, I use the number that I get from my Preferences tab. I hadn't seen the exact tool that you showed me here, but one that I find very useful includes the same information plus a lot more: [10]. I get to it by going to my User contributions, and clicking "Edit count" at the bottom of the page. I use it particularly as a self-check, to assess how much relative time I am spending in various namespaces, usually making me annoyed at myself for not spending more time in article space. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there a tool that tells you what articles you started? I'm especially proud of village idiot, but there may be others I've forgotten. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, hey, you started an article about me! Anyway, I'm not aware of anything like that on-Wiki. I'm under the impression that one can find that at WikiBlame. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is a tool that gauges how much trouble one has started on TPs and drama boards. Now wouldn't that be a fun tool?! It would probably take my stats at least a day to download - Tryp's maybe 5 minutes - and SBHB, well I'll just hush cuz a wrong guess could add to my download time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There are those who have accused me of being a useful or constructive editor, but they couldn't make it stick. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Noooo! Despite highly encyclopedic contributions like the one you mentioned above? You're jpsing me (what editors use now instead of joshing). ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, be careful what you wish for! [11] To my great relief, none of us are in the Top 50. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Except for that one trouble-maker. By the way, I demand that you apologize to me for how long it takes for your talk page to load on my computer. Yum, fish like worms! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm #10! You may bow down to me, then begone, worms! EEng 00:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Holy cow!!🐄 I didn't know that existed!! I guess the "removed" column represents reverts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Either that or users blocked. Yes, go to any page, and I mean any, and there's a Page Information link under Tools at the far left of the screen, and that, in turn, leads to all kinds of stuff. I'm especially a fan of page view statistics. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I had to remove my stupid question after I re-read it. *lol* I have no clue what the "removed" column represents or why there would be so many of them. I don't think archiving ANI cases would register as a remove or would it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Bloody hell! Thanks to Trypto (genuine thanks) I now know I have 116 people watching me! Makes that Jimmy Wales .gif on my user page seem just a little more creepy than I would like! DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centijimbos. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Hilarious. I am 3.4 centijimbos watched! DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's always struck me as vaguely Freudian when editors measure and compare their centijimbos (present company excluded, of course!). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding last week's RfB

This is a comment I had planned to make on Xaosflux's RfB, but the RfB closed before I could get to it, and then I planned to post it here when I had a moment, and the time got away from me. So I hope you will forgive me for bringing up something that might be considered ancient history by wiki standards, i.e. last week. But I did want to mention my view, in agreement with Gap9551 and BU Rob13, that casting an oppose !vote against a candidate whose promotion you don't actually oppose is not a sound practice. I say this even though the point you were trying to stress, that tools should be wielded with flexibility and discretion and not algorithmically, is one you know I agree with. Just a thought for what it's worth. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to tell me about this. My feelings are rather complicated, perhaps more so than I managed to communicate in what I said. I actually do have sufficient negative feelings that, in my own mind, an outright oppose would be justified. I just did not see any value in perhaps hurting the feelings of someone who was clearly going to pass otherwise unopposed. Consequently, I wrote the comment playing up the fact that I would not want the closer to hesitate to promote based on my one comment, perhaps playing it up too much. And that, in turn, made it sound like, I realize in hindsight, I was placing a clear support in the "wrong" section. But my intention was to couch my ongoing concerns in a non-confrontational way. So here I am, with my intended good will being perceived as a mistake in judgment. But I really do think that some IAR on my part was appropriate there. I do believe that I was better able to underline my concerns that way, than if I had simply moved to support and said similar things. After all, there is such a thing as a mild oppose, and it's not very far away from an ambivalent support. And context matters: I would not have done it that way in an RfB that looked to be close or in peril. In the actual context, I genuinely do not believe that any harm was done. And there is one more thing that I want to say. The two editors you agreed with offended me deeply (enough so that I moved from support to oppose in an almost simultaneous RfA, where another very experienced editor agreed with me). There are ways to convey disagreement, as you did here. What I saw there was, instead, childish and snotty. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, and completely unrelated, I enjoyed your play on circumspect and circumflex! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)